Correcting a mistake in a new edition

Source A: an original imagined statement by the editor of a reissued historical travel book.

We have corrected obvious printing mistakes in the new reading edition. A letter repeated in a word or a line accidentally printed twice can obstruct the account without telling us something the traveller intended. Readers should not have to solve those accidents before following the journey.

We have not silently corrected an assertion simply because the traveller was wrong. A mistaken description may matter to understanding the person’s assumptions. Where explanation is needed, a note can distinguish the original claim from information supplied by the new edition.

The distinction is not always easy. An unusual word may be a printer’s accident or a deliberate expression. When we are uncertain, we should say so rather than make the page look as though every decision was obvious. A readable edition can still be honest about the work which made it readable.

Source B: an original imagined letter by a reader who uses early books for research.

For ordinary reading, removing a duplicated line may be a kindness. For some questions, however, the printed page itself is part of the evidence. A feature which interrupts a modern reader might help somebody investigate how an edition was produced or received.

I do not require every reader to work from a photograph of an old page. I would ask the new publisher to identify the sort of edition being offered and keep a record of significant changes. Where possible, give a route to the original appearance for somebody whose question depends on it.

The problem is not correction by itself. It is a corrected page presented as though no intervention took place. A useful edition explains what it has chosen to preserve, what it has changed and which uncertainties it has left for the reader to see.

Compare the views in Sources A and B about correcting and preserving features of an old book in a new edition.